Comments on: My Progressivism: More Thoughts on the Debate

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:55:01 +0000

I think I agree with what you’re getting at Scott. That’s why I think ideally we would start to label positions rather than individuals. It would be so much easier to say, “I’m pretty liberal on gay marriage,” or “I am fairly conservative on abortion.” I guess the need for political parties inevitably has us choosing sides.

By: E.D. Kain

E.D. Kain — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:44:25 +0000

Which, in turn, causes reactions amongst the more partisan among us…

By: scotthpayne

scotthpayne — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:42:09 +0000

I tend to view this trend as the future of politics. Strict labels are increasingly unable to capture the nuances of how people think and feel about a variety of issues in a diversifying world. It seems like those that stick to hard and fast ideological labels do so by sticking their heads in the sand on a certain class of issues and find the chimera of stability offered by their ideological identity sufficient to ignore any cognitive dissonance their intellectual beach going produces.

Which is not to say that people can’t have general centres of gravity and choose sides, but those sides are getting more and more muddied as the sharp edges that separate them become dulled.

By: E.D. Kain

E.D. Kain — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:36:55 +0000

I’m in a similar boat, Mike, both in terms of my Christianity and my politics. I have started to think of myself as a progressive traditionalist Christian, with liberal social views; pro small/limited government, but accepting of federalism; and simply a mixed bag all around. I suppose that’s a good thing. I like how you explain it. Change is inevitable, indeed.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:29:23 +0000

Obviously there are nuances to any statement, but those are essentially the roots of liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism is more of an intellectual, top-down approach while conservatism is more of an experienced-based, botom-up philosphy.

There are a lot of traditions that can be honored while still enacting change. And honoring often simply means not ignoring them. It means recognizing that new ideas do not always trump old ones.

By: thoughtcounts Z

thoughtcounts Z — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:49:41 +0000

The choice is between unchecked, untested and overly optimistic change i.e. reckless or a careful and restrained change that honors the best of American social, political and national traditions.

Heh. Very fair and balanced portrayal of the options. I don’t think it’s a choice between recklessness and being careful. I think – and this comes through in your characterization, as well – it’s about what stuff we’re allowed to change. (If you make a point of honoring “social, political, and national traditions,” or excuse me, just “the best” of them, whatever that is… what’s left to change? Couldn’t those traditions encompass just about everything the government is able to make/enforce legislation about?)